Whether To Repeat Or Avoid We
Better Learn Our HistoryOrganized labor’s overarching priority, the modest reform of labor
law known as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), was first introduced in
congress about the time Bush invaded Iraq. It has had past success in the House
but always blocked in the Senate. As unions go all out now for what everyone
recognizes as their last best chance of enactment rhetoric is not only heating
up but turning to broader questions--and appeals to history.

For example, today’s Washington Post carries an
article entitled “Labor Union Bill
Raises Broader Capitalism Issues.” Actually it’s not all that broad but features
opponents of the bill explaining that globalization, not labor law, is the main
reason for the decline of unions. They undoubtedly have a point. The historic
bastions of blue collar unionism have lost hundreds of thousands of members just
to offshoring by U.S. based corporations. But this ignores the obstructions that
labor law puts in the way of unions organizing fresh forces–or effectively
defending present ones for that matter.

The most common argument advanced
by “moderate” opponents of reform, including some Democrats, is that the
economic crisis is not a good time to destabilize labor relations, hampering
recovery. A usual retort from EFCA supporters is that New Deal legislation such
as the Wagner Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act, was enacted during the Great
Depression when, at times, unemployment ran twenty percent or more. SEIU’s Andy
Stern told the Post,

“The truth is that Franklin
Roosevelt passed those laws under similar circumstances, and from 1945 to 1974,
we had an era where workers' wages and productivity was joined together...It was
probably the most tested economic stimulus of any public policy that has worked
for us.”

Chairman Andy begins by
attributing generosity to FDR and marking labor’s progress from passage of the
Wagner Act. That law, taking effect in the election year of 1936, did remove
some previous restrictions on unions. It came as a response to successful local
labor battles that in some cases took on the character of semi-insurrections
such as in Toledo, Minneapolis, and San Francisco in 1934. The Wagner Act was
passed not to promote union struggles but an anxious attempt to regulate
them.

The surge in unionization in the
late 1930s neither promoted nor retarded “economic stimulus.” There was still
mass unemployment as late as 1941. It was the mobilization for World War II that
brought an end to the Great Depression, not the New Deal. It was rebuilding the
war-torn economies of Europe and Japan, along with acquiring the markets of
former European colonies, that fueled American manufacturing well in to the
1970s.

After American labor’s greatest
strike wave in 1945-46 congress replaced the Wagner Act with the Taft-Hartley
Act in 1947. Among its changes were the outlawing of mass pickets to block
worksite entrances; prohibition of hot cargo refusal to handle goods of a struck
company; denying the right to secondary boycotts of those selling products of
companies on strike; authorization for states to enact so-called “right-to-work”
laws; and granting the President the right to seek injunctions to prevent or end
strikes. The law was passed over President Truman’s veto–but the man from
Missouri used the strike breaking injunctions under the new law more times than
any other President.

None of these measures that bar
labor’s most effective methods of struggle are addressed by EFCA. They are not
even on Chairman Andy’s–or any other major union official’s–wish list. They
envision a peaceful, nonconfrontational sign up for recognition followed by
lawyers arguing in arbitration for a first contract. Once those initial
obstacles are overcome they hope the employers will see they’re not so
unreasonable and will be open to “partnership.”

While supporting EFCA, I believe we must answer the
accompanying distortion of our history, revised to promote the class
collaboration perspective that undermines our unions today. My long time friend
David Riehle, an accomplished labor historian as well as a rail labor leader in
St Paul, will help us sort out our class heritage in his presentation “The Truth
About the New Deal,” at our April 3-4 conferencein Kansas City.

History Lesson Deux
The boards controlled by the UNITE wing of UNITE-HERE have voted to separate from
both the hospitality component of the union and Change to Win. They will seek to
return the 150,000 textile, garment, and laundry members they claim, along with
the Amalgamated Bank, to the AFL-CIO.

In a staff memo that has made its
way on to the Internet, UNITE president Bruce Raynor offers an odd historical
defense for splitting the union.

“This schism is unprecedented in
our union but it has historic parallels such as the secession of a large portion
of the membership of the United Electrical Workers to form the IUE in 1949and
1950. Today the IUE and the UE continue as separate unions but they also act
together when the interests of their membership require, such as bargaining with
General Electric Corporation, a major employer where they both represent GE
workers.”

The IUE “secession” with which
Raynor apparently identifies was part of a Cold War split in the CIO, engineered
by the government, implemented by a bureaucracy consolidating in the CIO around
Phil Murray and Walter Reuther. The original aim of the IUE was to destroy
the UE. They worked in close collaboration with the Association of Catholic
Trade Unionists and red-baiting politicians such as Hubert Humphrey. They also
had competitors in this mission from the AFL and some CIO unions.

But the UE, though greatly
weakened, was not destroyed. They survived by clinging to the internal democracy
and adversarial unionism that they were founded upon. The IUE, and several other
unions, had to eventually agree to coordinate bargaining with the UE at GE,
Westinghouse and other companies with multi-union contracts.

The IUE in fact no longer exists
as an independent union. They merged several years ago in to the Communications
Workers. The UE carries on independently and can be proud of their remarkable
recent victory at Republic Windows. It seems strange Raynor would want to claim
affinity with the Cold Warriors of the original IUE splitters. Certainly neither
he nor his hospitality rival can stake any credible claim to the traditions of
the UE.

Speaker Addition
We’re happy to announce we’ve added Steven Ashby, an Associate Professor, Labor
Education Program, University of Illinois, to our speaker list at the Kansas
City conference. Ashby co-authored, with CJ Hawking, a just released book,
Staley: The Fight for a New American Labor Movement. The book has received
enthusiastic recommendation from such reviewers as Jeremy Brecher, Staughton
Lynd, Bill Fletcher, and Peter Rachleff.

Many of you will remember the
brave fight put up by workers at AE Staley, in Decatur, Illinois, in the
mid-90s. Their Road Warriors roamed the country building impressive solidarity,
including several visits to Kansas City. The KC Labor Party twice organized
caravans to Decatur in support of mass rallies and civil disobedience. I look
forward to reading the book and listening to the talk.

In Brief...
¶ Opponents of construction of Sunflower’s coal-fired power plants in Kansas are
mobilizing for Clean Energy Day II in Topeka this Thursday, March 19. There will
be a Noon rally at the Capitol to support Governor Sebelius’s continuing efforts
to block the project. In the afternoon Kansas residents will lobby their
legislators. For more details click here.

¶ A headline in today’s New
York Times proclaims, Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits.
This, of course, was raised by Bush and strongly condemned by labor and
Democrats. The lead paragraph reads, “The Obama administration is signaling to
Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits,
as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for
overhauling the health care system.”

¶ Declining home values, a
crashing stock market, and, in millions of cases lost paychecks, resulted in an
eighteen percent loss in household wealth in 2008. The trend so far in 2009 is
on target for trillions more in losses.

¶ More than 700 UNITE-HERE
employees of Aramark picketed a Canucks hockey game in Vancouver over wages and
job security. They handed out peanuts to approaching fans to symbolize the
company’s offer. A big fight is also shaping up on possible temporary job loss
when the 2010 Olympics take over the GM Place hockey venue where they work.

¶ There’s further criticism
surfacing about the CAW’s concession deal with GM-Canada. On Wednesday Chrysler
president Tom LaSorda said the GM terms were “unacceptable” and threatened to
pull out of Canada. A Ford vice-president piped up, “We believe the recently
negotiated agreement between General Motors Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers
will not keep Ford's Canadian operations competitive in today's global economy.”